[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your post! I always treasure your views, betty boop! Hugs!!!

Something that concerns me very much is a seemingly growing tendency within the sciences -- more pronounced in the social and historical sciences than in the "hard" sciences, but sometimes present even in the latter -- for the creators of the various theories to so fall in love with their creations that they will defend them against any and all challenges "from outside."

Exactly! For instance, the timeline of Egyptology prohibits a more ancient Sphinx; its defense against late dating by Geologists can be called nothing less than hostile. We see the same hostilities in defense of abiogenesis and evolution during the Cambrian explosion. Both are “just so” stories of the past; challengers are met with great hostility.

In contrast, the many-world theories in Physics has many challengers – but the epistemological zeal is much greater in that discipline; the debate is brisk, but I see no personal hostility.

I mainly agree, though do feel a tad chagrined that you generally dumped philosophy on the lowest rung.

That was not meant to show any disrespect. To the contrary, the reason I put it on the bottom is that in contrast with geometry and math - there is no unassailable “rightness” or “wrongness” of philosophy. More than any of the other disciplines, Philosophy entertains the full smorgasbord of views.

[betty boop]

That was not meant to show any disrespect.

I know that, Alamo-Girl. I know why you put it where you did: Philosophy is just not an experimental science! So in a ranking of the disciplines of "science," it would definitely have to take last place. Still it did give us epistemology, a non-experimental science; and, arguably, so are math and geometry non-experimental.... So the "first" and the "last" somehow have a kind of "given" quality, beyond experiment....

...which may have something to do with the "designed" quality of the universe. Thanks so much for much for writing, A-G. Hugs!